welpu-^(ti) 

This lexeme is found in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.), as well as in the poetical inscription engraved on the lion sarcophagus of Antiphellos dated on stylistic grounds to the beginning of the 4^th century BCE (Zahle 1979a:318, Mühlbauer 2007a:91).

[D.S.]

3sg. pres. ind. act.	welputi	TL 55.1 (Antiphellos)
part. acc.(?) sg. c.	welpumi	TL 44d.48 (Xanthos)

Schürr 1997c:137 interprets welputi as a 3^rd plural form, taking lijaiz ‘nymphs’ as its subject. However, the ending expected for a plural form of a stem in -u- would be -ñti (cf. 3pl. pret. puñte). Schürr 2005a:155 justifies the lack of nasalization as an anomaly and adduces another case, i.e. putu (TL 29.12). However, the example given is found in a fragmentary context, which does not guarantee its interpretation as a verbal form (acc. sg. is equally possible). For the interpretation of the form welputi as singular instead of plural, see under Meaning. The doubts of Neumann 2007a:56f., 423 regarding the segmentation of the sequence me=welpumi and mlu=t(e)=ene=welputi, comparing the personal name el[puw]eti (TL 23.2) rendered by Gk. ἐλποατ[ις], cannot be considered well founded. In each of the two cases, he would see the particle =w(e) before the verb *elpu-, which is possible, but unlikely. False readings of TL 55 in Gehrisch 2018a:107.

[D.S.]

In TL 55, the verb welputi takes a votive offering, i.e. mlu, as direct object. Contra Schürr 1997c:137, the subject of the verb is surely pixre (PN), which occurs right after the verb and the particle chain (thus also Eichner apud Schürr 1997c:137 n. 7 and Shevoroshkin 2015a:200). This would correspond to the typical syntax found at the beginning of grave inscriptions:
[eb]ạṇ̃ṇu : mlu=t(e)=ene welputi : pixre : lijenuwi : pleliz : madrane : wirasajaja tm͂qrẽ : lijaiz (TL 55.1)
‘This votive offering here, Pigres welpu-s it to the nymphaeum, so that the nymphs of Phellos may madrane the wirasajaja tm͂qrẽ.’
Following this syntactic interpretation, it becomes clear that the nymphs (lijaiz) must be accusative plural and thus subject of an accusative-infinitive construction. The other occurrence of the word in a ritualistic passage is analyzed by Sasseville 2014-2015a:115, who takes welpumi as accusative singular agreeing with pttili and xustti. While this is entirely possible, the confusing ending -i prevents any certainty regarding the case ending. It is possible that welpumi and pttili/xustti are in a different case. In any way, the participle welpumi must refer to some kind of offering, especially if one takes the occurrence in TL 55 into consideration.
Concerning the semantics of welpu-^(ti), Shevoroshkin 2015a:200 suggests the meaning ‘to cherish, set hopes on’, which is hard to fit into the context. His assignment is motivated by an etymological link with the PIE root *welp- ‘to set hopes on’ (cf. Gk. ἔλπομαι ‘to hope’, Lat. voluptās f. ‘pleasure’, LIV²:680). While the connection is phonologically fine, the semantics posited for the Lycian verbs are contextually inappropriate. Since Lyc. welpu-^(ti) is an action performed to a religious offering for the benefit of a sanctuary, a meaning such as ‘to dedicate, give over, surrender (vel sim.)’ is expected. Differently, Schürr 1997c:137 (and Schürr 2018b:85) translates it as ‘to forbid, refuse’, which is highly speculative and hardly possible to fit into the contexts.

[D.S.]